Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tejinder Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 August, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.208 of 2016 Date of Decision : August 4, 2016 .
Tejinder Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.
Coram:
of The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Additional
rt Advocate General & Mr. Puneet
Rajta, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dheeraj Vashist, for respondent No.3.
Sanjay Karol, Judge In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 7.4.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in Appeal No.128/14, titled as Govinder Singh v. State of H.P. and another.
2. Evidently, petitioner's application for impleadment as a party, in the proceedings initiated by the private respondent, stands rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:55 :::HCHP...2...
3. State set in motion the machinery for initiation of proceedings, under the provisions of Section .
118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Revenue Act, 1972, against the private respondent. This was so done on the complaint filed by the present petitioner. So far so good.
Significantly, in the said proceedings, petitioner never of came to be impleaded as a party, either as an applicant or as a respondent/proforma respondent. Proceedings before the District Collector, Shimla, were initiated for rt and on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh against the private respondent.
4. The Collector only allowed the petitioner to place certain material, but never impleaded him as a party.
5. The District Collector decided the proceedings in terms of order dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P-1), against which appeal stands preferred by the private respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved of such order, it is always open for him to independently assail the same, but in the proceedings initiated by the State or for that matter appeal preferred by the private ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:55 :::HCHP ...3...
respondent, he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party. State can adequately protect its interest.
.
6. It could not be pointed out as to in what manner order passed by the District Collector prejudices the petitioner. Also, there is neither any illegality nor perversity in the impugned order, warranting interference of by this Court.
As such, the present petition, devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also rt stand disposed of.
( Sanjay Karol ),
August 4, 2016(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:55 :::HCHP